Author: Jay Urbanski
Date: 21:09:48 07/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2003 at 00:18:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 08, 2003 at 23:10:03, Jay Urbanski wrote: > >>On July 08, 2003 at 23:03:01, Jay Urbanski wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2003 at 23:35:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>>I have PVM running on our giganet switch, which is faster than myrinet. But, >>>>as I said, such clusters are _rare_. TCP/IP is the common cluster connection, >>>>for obvious reasons. And that's where the interest in clusters lies, not >>>>in how exotic a combination you can put together, but in what kind of >>>>performance you can extract from a common combination. >>> >>>Giganet is not faster than Myrinet - it's 1.25Gb/s compared to Myrinet's 2Gb/s >>>and it has higher latency. Giganet is also no longer being sold - it's a dead >>>technlogy. But such clusters aren't *that* rare - I count 57 Linux clusters >>>with fast (better than GigE) on the TOP500 list. >>> >>>Heck - if we had a decent MPI chess program available I bet any number of those >>>"exotic" clusters would sign up for an exhibition match with one of the >>>super-GM's. One thing they all have in common is that they *love* publicity. >> >>Assuming, of course, that such a program / hardware combination warranted such a >>match. :) > >You mean: that i need to pay for such a match? > >That's the opposite of what you just posted the message before. > >Hell, the only guys that gave me a logon to their supercomputer was the dutch >government for which i thank them. Also it's the worlds fastest machine >(expressed in latency) that is giving away system time to such projects. > >Note that IBM only gave away system time at a poor 32 node cluster. With sick >high latencies. each node was 100Mhz (2 nodes 120Mhz). Even in 1997 that wasn't >considered fast. > >Zugzwang uses MPI by the way. I remember Feldmann telling how hard it was for >him to get system time, and i can assure you. That's *definitely* the case. > >I'm glad i just had to write 1 page for each processor that i get. Otherwise i >would not have a life. No, I don't mean pay for a match. I mean it would have to be demonstrated that Diep (for example) running on a large cluster was significantly stronger than any other combination of chess-playing hardware/software out there. Then you might have a chance to convince Braingames or whoever that the next Man/Machine contest should use a cluster for the Machine side. Now I'll readily admit that I'm not aware of all the chess politics that goes into organizing these matches so maybe I'm wrong - but I think part of the appeal of the Deep Blue / Kasparov match was that Deep Blue was such a monster on paper at least. (32 CPUs and several hundred dedicated chess chips)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.